2 Growth Stocks with Explosive Upside and 1 to Think Twice About
Growth boosts valuation multiples, but it doesn't always last forever. Companies that cannot maintain it are often penalized with large declines in market value, a lesson ingrained in investors who lost money in tech stocks during 2022.
Luckily for you, our job at StockStory is to help you avoid short-term fads by pointing you toward high-quality businesses that can generate sustainable long-term growth. That said, here are two growth stocks with significant upside potential and one that could be down big.
One-Year Revenue Growth: +30.1%
Having played a role in upgrading the energy solutions of Alcatraz Island, Ameresco (NYSE:AMRC) provides energy and renewable energy solutions for various sectors.
Why Do We Think AMRC Will Underperform?
Muted 6.1% annual revenue growth over the last two years shows its demand lagged behind its industrials peers
Cash burn makes us question whether it can achieve sustainable long-term growth
Unfavorable liquidity position could lead to additional equity financing that dilutes shareholders
At $13.65 per share, Ameresco trades at 13x forward P/E. Dive into our free research report to see why there are better opportunities than AMRC.
One-Year Revenue Growth: +16.1%
Having been at the forefront of developing the standards for cellular connectivity for over four decades, Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) is a leading innovator and a fabless manufacturer of wireless technology chips used in smartphones, autos and internet of things appliances.
Why Are We Fans of QCOM?
Annual revenue growth of 11.3% over the last five years beat the sector average and underscores the unique value of its offerings
Strong free cash flow margin of 30.4% enables it to reinvest or return capital consistently
Market-beating returns on capital illustrate that management has a knack for investing in profitable ventures
Qualcomm's stock price of $145.17 implies a valuation ratio of 12.3x forward P/E. Is now the time to initiate a position? Find out in our full research report, it's free.
One-Year Revenue Growth: +15.1%
With locations often featuring Western-inspired decor, Texas Roadhouse (NASDAQ:TXRH) is an American restaurant chain specializing in Southern-style cuisine and steaks.
Why Is TXRH a Good Business?
Rapid rollout of new restaurants to capitalize on market opportunities makes sense given its strong same-store sales performance
Same-store sales growth over the past two years shows it's successfully drawing diners into its restaurants
Stellar returns on capital showcase management's ability to surface highly profitable business ventures, and its rising returns show it's making even more lucrative bets
Texas Roadhouse is trading at $190 per share, or 26.8x forward P/E. Is now a good time to buy? See for yourself in our comprehensive research report, it's free.
Market indices reached historic highs following Donald Trump's presidential victory in November 2024, but the outlook for 2025 is clouded by new trade policies that could impact business confidence and growth.
While this has caused many investors to adopt a "fearful" wait-and-see approach, we're leaning into our best ideas that can grow regardless of the political or macroeconomic climate. Take advantage of Mr. Market by checking out our Top 5 Growth Stocks for this month. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 176% over the last five years.
Stocks that made our list in 2020 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+1,545% between March 2020 and March 2025) as well as under-the-radar businesses like the once-micro-cap company Tecnoglass (+1,754% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today for free.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Republican on deficit spending in GOP bill: ‘It's not a perfect world'
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) lamented the deficit spending in the GOP's 'big, beautiful' spending package, but framed the issue as a necessary compromise to avoid having to negotiate with Democrats. 'I don't want to have any deficit spending. But what I'm trying to suggest to you is that we are stuck in a paradigm where we have to pass this ourselves,' Sessions told CNN's John Berman in an interview Thursday morning. The Texas Republican said he conceded on demands from a handful of Republicans representing blue-leaning states who pushed to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, adding, 'It's a balance there.' 'What we're trying to do is balance out where the American people get jobs and job creation. We really don't want to see people just leave these blue states because of taxes that they can't afford their property,' Sessions said. 'So, it is not a perfect world, John.' He also pointed out that if the sprawling legislative agenda is not passed through the reconciliation process, then Republicans would have to turn to Democrats — which, Sessions argued, would not necessarily reduce deficit spending but would mean less of Trump's agenda could make it through Congress. 'The bottom line is, is that this has to come together as a piece of legislation. You see, John, if we do not pass our one big, beautiful bill, then we negotiate with Democrats, essentially nine Democrats, that simply raises spending to get us where we get the tax cuts that we save them, where they ought to be,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'So it is, no question about it, not a perfect battle for Republicans,' he added. The interview comes amid criticism from tech billionaire Elon Musk that has slowed momentum in the Senate on the bill. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday projected that the 1,116-page House passed bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
Business Wire
14 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Deadline Approaching: Fortrea Holdings Inc. (FTRE) Investors Who Lost Money Urged To Contact Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
BENSALEM, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming August 1, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Fortrea Holdings Inc. ('Fortrea' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ: FTRE) securities between , inclusive (the 'Class Period'). IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN FORTREA HOLDINGS INC. (FTRE), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal rights by email at howardsmith@ by telephone at (215) 638-4847 or visit our website at What Happened? On September 25, 2024, the investment bank Jefferies downgraded Fortrea from buy to hold, citing perceived weaknesses in the Company's business model as a contract research organization ('CRO') amid pressure on biotechnology funding and that the cost savings Fortrea expects to achieve by existing transition services agreements ('TSAs') are 'not as material as one might think.' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $2.73, or 12.3%, to close at $19.48 per share on September 25, 2024, thereby injuring investors. Then, on December 6, 2024, Baird Equity Research stated that '[g]iven our ongoing concerns around the sector, [Fortrea's] choppy history post spin, and lack of clarity on the abrupt communications course change, we cannot recommend an actionable investment (buy or sell)[.]' On this news, Fortrea's stock price fell $1.90, or 8.1%, to close at $21.67 per share on December 6, 2024. Then, on March 3, 2025, before the market opened, Fortrea announced financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2024, revealing the Company had missed its previously announced guidance for revenue and adjusted EBITDA for the full year 2024. The Company's financial results revealed full year adjusted EBITDA of $202.5 million, well below the Company's previously announced guidance of $220 million to $240 million. The Company also revealed full year revenue of $2.696 billion, which missed previously announced guidance of $2.7 billion to $2.725 billion. The Company further revealed financial guidance for the full year 2025, which projected declines in revenue and adjusted EBITDA, with revenues of $2.450 billion to $2.550 billion and adjusted EBITDA in the range of $170 million to $200 million. Thomas Pike ('Pike'), the Company's then-Chief Executive Officer ('CEO'), explained that 'full-service work for projects from the pre-spin period,' 'have less revenue and less profitability' and 'post-spin work is not coming on fast enough to offset the pre-spin contract economics.' Pike further revealed 'this older versus newer mix issue will continue to negatively impact our financial performance during 2025.' On this news, Fortrea shares fell $3.47, or 25.1%, to close at $10.38 per share on March 3, 2025, thereby injuring investors further. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Fortrea overestimated the amount of revenue the Pre-Spin Projects were likely to contribute to the Company's 2025 earnings; (2) Fortrea overstated the cost savings it would likely achieve by exiting the TSAs; (3) as a result, the Company's previously announced EBITDA targets for 2025 were inflated; (4) accordingly, the viability of the Company's post-Spin-Off business model, as well as its business and/or financial prospects, were overstated; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fortrea securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 1, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@ Visit our website at: To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
